It is unlikely for the name ‘Bolsonaro’ to be unfamiliar to most, at least everyone has heard a mumble about how terribly Brazil has handled the Covid-19 crisis or the dystopian state of the Amazon rainforest. These infamous failures are brought to you by Bolsonaro: a former military officer who was elected in 2018 as a member of the conservative party of the nation, which is ironically called the Social Liberal Party. He is often referred to as a right-wing extremist, a ‘Trump of Brazil’, or an authoritarian tyrant, but the media haze of all his terrible recent actions have distracted from his potential to be even more destructive than he already is in power.
A key element of his regime is by ruling with a degree of fear and repression, and blunt denial of any failures. Whether that be in his previous statements and beliefs, or obvious economic/ environmental downfalls. It is therefore useful to know the man that we are dealing with, given that his true colours have been slightly fogged by scrutiny into the impact of his actions, less his intentions. Of course, there is the ongoing philosophical debate of whether the danger of his intentions is outweighed by the outcome of his actions that may not be proportionally as bad. However, when speaking in practice on such a large scale and with such a large country as Brazil is with over 210 million people, there is not enough room for moral evaluations. We must examine the long-term desires held by Bolsonaro which are rooted in his personal beliefs and alignment with the ultra-right. His beliefs are instrumental in predicting his vision of Brazil and even the South American continent. A belief that is highly concerning for the character of a leading politician is that of endorsing torture and violence in circumstances where he finds it justifiable. It is paramount at this point to clarify that this frightening aspect of his politics is not quite so simply linked to the right side of the political spectra; if we continue to credit traits such as violence to only one side of a spectrum, that is already far too simplified to include the nuance of politics. Instead, what we would be left with is an ideological war and zero protection of the people of Brazil.
In an interview with a journalist in the year of his election, Bolsonaro gave the interviewer an analogy to explain his circumstantial approval of torture, where he evaluated that if his own two daughters were to be kidnapped by a criminal then, “I’m going to volunteer to torture that guy”. At this point, perhaps we are sceptical – after all, we all have protective instincts and seeking revenge against a kidnapper does not necessarily reflect wider intentions. But then he went on, “[So] what is the most important value in your life: is it your daughter or the right to remain silent?”. This is now when we can see a massive, flashing red-light for his political stance on law and order; anti-establishment, emotion-driven, and undemocratic. While this tends to be the antithesis of most democratic European countries and the UK, and therefore we tend to disagree with Bolsonaro’s perspective, it is also dangerous to fall into the rabbit hole of Western exceptionalism, where we shame all and anything that doesn’t promote democracy and supposedly freedom of speech or beliefs. The reason it can be dangerous is because we end up ignoring the underlying issues that expose themselves in elections – the leader nominated by the majority is accompanied by the views held by the majority too. Brazil is home to nearly 20 of the world’s 50 most violent cities globally, with around nearly 65,000 homicides annually the year before Bolsonaro was elected. It is essential then, to scrutinize why the people of Brazil would rather turn to a controlling and nationalist government over a weaker left-wing one. The left-wing government appearing corrupted and dishonest on account of the leftist former president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva facing convictions. So, what contributed massively to the rise of Bolsonaro in the nation was a desire for assertiveness and someone who appeared to understand the personal grievances of the citizens across the nation, who are victims of incomprehensible forms of crime.
The voters saw a crude, rogue leader from a Catholic family in a small town of Sao Paolo who had risen from a life in the working class, promising to ensure safety and buckle down on crime. An economist, who was close to Bolsonaro’s family, quoted in America’s Quarterly that he, “has the mind of an average Brazilian and people love that”. Right there, we spot feelings of neglect in the people of Brazil and in fact, we can see a trend across the world of the rise of right-wing leaders who are the manifestation of a yearning to be listened to and understood. For example, Trump vowed to help working-class voters in the Midwest who had a fear of higher taxation, and while some people might see the juxtaposition and hypocrisy of his wealth and long-term existence in the top 1%, he was the first politician who seemed less like a politician, and more of a truth-talker (however wrong that may seem in retrospect). This is not the only comparison we can draw between the two leaders, who had gathered in Florida in 2020 with Bolsonaro saying he hoped that Trump would win the election. They both embrace with open arms a denial of science, and inherently foster distrust in establishments that offer solutions to global crises such as Covid-19 or climate change. Bolsonaro said that, “this story that the Amazon is burning is a lie”, and we see a similar denial with Trump who called climate change, “a total and very expensive hoax”. Bolsonaro has called Brazil a, “country of f*gs” for criticising his handling of the death rates and explained how if he were to catch the virus, “[he] wouldn’t feel anything”. This nonchalant sugar-coating of a global crisis is echoed in Trump, who said Covid “affects virtually nobody” and compared it to the common flu. Moreover, both leaders massively questioned the work and research done by scientists in both of these examples, instilling doubt in citizens about vaccines or environmental duties. This stirring of rebellion and anti-establishment sentiment by these two leaders provides evidence that personal beliefs or moral alignments can easily sift through into their policies or the direction that they point their citizens to. It is also far easier to achieve this in divided, conflicted nations; America falling into a violent culture war, and Brazil falling not just into this cultural divide, but also into actual violence due to the rampant fraud and crime that plagues the nation.
Arguably, it could seem a stretch to accuse the leader of executing his aggressive beliefs into government without specific examples of this. So, let’s have a look. In 2019, Bolsonaro reinstated commemorations of the 1964 coup which inaugurated two decades of military dictatorship and came to power by deposing a democratically elected president. That same year, he used the Presidential Decree to fire all 11 members of the country’s National Preventative Mechanism Against Torture (NPM), which had been installed in 2013 to inspect places where people may have a deprivation of liberty and human rights (e.g. prisons, police facilities, psychiatric hospitals). Bolsonaro’s move deprived the NPM of resources and therefore posed a national threat, even ruffling the feathers of some UN members who expressed disapproval. His defunding of the structure was a vital component in the record-high increase of deaths caused by police, which went up by 30% in Rio De Janeiro. Ergo, we can see how swiftly personal beliefs intertwine with policy, and although watered down at first, they reveal themselves in ways that can be detrimental to the well-being of a nation’s population. We must keep in mind that there are endless more links to be made with his controversial personal beliefs and policy. Let’s take his rampant homophobia. He proudly claimed in a campaign speech that he, “will make Brazil a country of minorities. Minorities must bow to majorities.” Adding more recently that, “Brazil can’t be a country of the gay world” or most shockingly claiming that he would rather his son “die in an accident” than live as a homosexual. There are countless more examples on topics like rape, military power, and even comments on the Chinese since the outbreak of Covid-19, all of which provide a very reliable foreshadowing for his policies if he were to win this next election.
However, a poll recorded in the past weeks has shown 59% of voters rejecting Bolsonaro, rendering him less likely to stay in power. Particularly after the comeback of former president Da Silva whose criminal convictions were quashed, and whose base remains influential. No matter the outcomes of the 2022 elections, acknowledging and analysing the source of such unpredictable leaders like Bolsonaro is indispensable if we wish to progress not only Brazil’s current situation, but also that of all other nations. All these desires aforementioned were manifested in the form of ‘let’s-get-real’ leaders, so to speak. We ought to take his rise to power as a symptom of voter neglect so that we can more easily cater to the needs of global citizens. We simultaneously must not be tempted to disconnect a leader from their moral compass which results in the elections of destructive and power-hungry dictators.
